This
list of questions and answers provides
insight into board decisions during the
most recent meetings. If you have further
questions that you would like to see
addressed here, submit your questions
to the Board at board@boardgamers.org or
to the Convention Director at doncon99@toad.net.
See also Tenth Seat 2005 and WBC
FAQs.

PUBLIC
DISCUSSIONS. Probably
the most important thing we can tell you
about the latest Meeting of your Board of
Directors is why we can’t make public most
of what is said behind closed doors in those
meetings. Why not publish the
Board’s votes so that members can see who is for or
against their
particular pet peeve and vote accordingly to “throw
the bum out"?

In
a democracy, that’s a reasonable request.
But corporations are not a democracy and BPA is not a government.
It is a non-profit corporation.
If you investigate such organizations, indeed any
business, you’ll find
that their Board votes are not made public and with
good reason. They
discuss matters whose details could negatively impact
their business if
made public. As a stockholder in XYZ corporation, I
certainly don’t want
my Board of Directors to divulge information that
could negatively
impact the stock’s performance.

Most
reasonable people would agree. However, some of our members see
BPA more as a club than a corporation, and they liken their Board
as their representatives who should be held accountable
for their votes so
they can be singled out and held accountable for views
that do not
coincide with their own. That’s how its supposed to
work in congress,
but not in a corporation. In the latter, Board members
are charged to
protect the stockholder’s (i.e., member’s) interests
without any
politicking as to how they do it.

Keep
in mind that your Board members are fellow gamers who are highly
motivated to help the organization and do so at considerable sacrifice
of their own time without recompense. Not only do they donate
the considerable time it takes to attend Board meetings,
but they also tend
to be the first and most prolific volunteers for other
tasks that need
doing. Their reward for this often takes the form of
public criticism
from those with different viewpoints. Anyone who
thinks it is possible
to discharge the duties of a Board member no matter
how perfectly
without gaining the ire of someone is on a fool’s
errand. No truer
words were ever spoken than “you can’t please
everybody."

So,
for starters, we don’t publicize votes because doing so would
discourage qualified people from serving on the Board.
I, for one, want
no part of serving on a Board where I have to incur
the public wrath of
every Tom, Dick and Harry who disagrees with my vote.
Experience has
shown that there is virtually nothing about WBC on
which everyone
agrees.

Secondly,
any public accounting of votes would discourage a free
exchange of ideas in Board discussions if members are
more concerned
about winning re-election and what would be popular as
opposed to what
is best for the organization. Any Board vote is always
preceded by a
frank and often spirited exchange of viewpoints, both
pro and con. Any
sterile reporting of votes without a full accounting
of the testimony
and reasoning that went into the vote does a
disservice to the voter.
If Member X has his vote reported, he will be obliged
to also tell his
constituency why he felt compelled to vote that way.
Not only will the
member be thus inconvenienced by having to report the
reasoning of that
decision all over again, but he may find it difficult
to do so without
revealing sensitive information that does not belong
in a public forum.

Lastly,
we live in a litigious society. During the give and take that
precedes any vote, issues can be discussed that may
give rise to
nuisance lawsuits were they made public. We pay hefty
annual premiums
for insurance against such eventualities as a constant
reminder of the
need that we must conduct business with a tad more
decorum than is
exercised in the average gameclub.

There
are those for whom the above explanation will not suffice …
their curiosity will not be appeased by a need for
discretion. For
instance, what can be hurt by disclosing who voted for
or against
Legacy status for event X?

Ok,
let’s look at that. First, you have to understand that the Legacy
rules encompass more than just whether we like a game. Most of
those inclined to be upset by an event’s failure to earn
Legacy status are
motivated by one thing: they happen to like that game.
In actuality,
whether a Board member likes game X should not enter
at all into the
decision to vote yay or nay.

Instead,
we look at the qualifications. Has the event met the ten years
service requirement with satisfactory attendance? Has the GM met
all the conditions for running the event? Is the
attendance trending down,
up or stable?

Let’s
assume event X was denied Legacy status because the GM has
consistently failed to fulfill his obligations. Should
a Board member
be criticized for failing to vote it Legacy status? Of
course not! But
if we publicize the vote, we’ll then have to publicize
the reason why
it failed the vote—causing some degree of public
humiliation for the
GM in question. That is not how we choose to operate.
We’re happy to
praise excellence where merited but we have no desire
to ostracize
those who fail to meet our standards.

That
said, what is fair game to report from the Tenth Seat? Skipping
over the more mundane, we can shed some light pro and con on some
of the more interesting issues. In all cases, however, it
is important to
note that changes don’t come about just because
someone has a new idea.
For virtually any issue there usually are as many
reasons not to do
something as there is to do it and all such votes are
preceded by often spirited discussion pro and con. Sometimes,
change is slow in coming
and the necessary votes just aren’t there until a
palatable compromise
can be reached. For instance, the change to the
current Century/Trial
selection system that took place two years ago had
actually been
debated several years prior but lacked the necessary
votes to pass
until 2005.

MESE: Perhaps the most controversial policy in 2006 and the one that
used most of the Board’s time with extensive discussion remains
the Board-mandated MESE tie breakers. This debate was held
again—twice -
both at the start and end of the fall meeting but
failed to generate
any significant changes. We resolved to stay the
course on the policy,
albeit with more emphasis on examples in the revised
GM Guidelines. Not
surprisingly, comments from the membership had both
praised and
condemned the MESE policy—reflecting the split
opinions on the
subject.

At
the root of the problem is the basic issue of whether GMs should
have the freedom to create any format they choose for their event.
The Board’s response is yes—up to a point. The Board
requires events to
use one of WBC’s standard approved formats.
Standardizing formats makes
it easier for attendees to understand what is required
without reading the fine print of myriad similar, but different,
formats. Experience has shown that GMs tend to “game” the format rules and
add their own
twists in an attempt to outdraw one another. Left
unchecked, we would
eventually have 150 different formats to explain,
formats with so many
heats that the schedule would resemble a bronx phone
book, and much more public confusion.

Fortunately,
the Board has acted to standardize event formats to lessen
the amount of explanation required. We also feel
that the average attendee is best served by formats
which allow each attendee to
maximize his gaming time without being forced to
endure delays in his
schedule from added rounds just to eliminate a
few players rather than
resorting to pre-determined tie-breakers to advance
players as efficiently as possible.

This
policy, appreciated by some, is anathema to others who take the
opposite tack. Often referred to as the “Win and
You’re In” philosophy,
these folks feel that perseverance should be rewarded
and thus winning
two out of three heats is better than winning your
first and only heat
when it comes time to advance. Taken to its extreme,
this camp’s
viewpoint would argue that anyone who wins any
preliminary game should
be allowed to advance even if it means adding an extra
round to the
schedule to eliminate one surplus player.

There
really is no right or wrong to these viewpoints—both
have creditable arguments. And given a dedicated
field and sufficient time
to determine a winner, one could certainly
argue that the latter view
is correct. However, it is our opinion that
the majority of attendees
are more interested and better served by the
use of tie breakers that
efficiently advance players to a conclusion
as quickly as possible so
as not to interfere with other pursuits on
their gaming schedule. “So
many games , so little time” remains ever so
true…especially during
WBC.

TEAM
TOURNAMENT: 2006 saw the first repeat winner in 16 years of the
Team Tournament and that prompted discussion of what has become
an increasingly apparent tendency for teams to be based
on their
championship resume as opposed to a common club or
regional background. The Team Tournament was originally envisioned
as a fun “trash talking”
device to encourage camaraderie among local gaming
groups. Lately, too
many teams seem to be formed based on their pedigree
rather than common
backgrounds. To combat this trend somewhat, we have
added a level of
handicapping to the Team Tournament that goes beyond
the posting of
odds by the Happy Handicapper. Henceforth, any player
without a history
of having won that event previously will be eligible
for a bonus point
in scoring the Team Tournament. Sharks will still be
the most likely
winners but now it might be more advantageous for a
champion to test
his mettle in a fresh event rather than go for his xth
consecutive
championship in his specialty. At the very least, the
pretenders among
us will have more incentive to do battle with the
contenders.

POST-MIDNIGHT
GAMING: An annual point of discussion is whether WBC
should run gaming events around the clock—be
they tournaments or
other fare. The argument has always been it is
going to happen anyway,
so why not organize it? The Board’s position remains
that while we do not wish to stand in the way of those who want
to game until the wee
hours, we do not want to encourage it. People tend
to overdo it at
gaming conventions and it is widely believed that
those who forego adequate sleep for a few more hours of fun enjoy
it less in the long
run—as do those who find themselves paired across
a board with the
sleep deprived. More importantly, we feel there
are legitimate safety
issues at stake with so many of our members climbing
behind the wheel for long trips home. We don’t want them making
that drive with drooping
eyelids. Then too, parents have a hard enough time
keeping track of their children without our adding to their plight
by creating official
excuses for kids to stay out all night. It is not
our place to make
parenting decisions, but neither do we think we
should be adding to the
stay-out-all-night desires concerned parents must
combat.

TEEN
GAMING: Which leads us to another annual source of angst: trying
to make WBC more attractive to the younger set. The Junior events
have gone a long way to making WBC a family friendly
destination but making the transition from
Junior to regular fare seems daunting to some.
Consequently, there have been calls for the formation
of age group divisions to promote teen
play. The argument against that has always been that we want teens
to join us in our games—not create more
barriers to segregate them from the general gaming
population. While young teens may be at
a disadvantage in the more skilled events until
they gain the requisite experience, there are
many events at WBC—arguably a majority of them—where they
can—and have—held their
own against their elders.

Nevertheless,
while we do not feel age division tournaments are
appropriate, the creation of social events
just for teens may be
helpful in helping them make the transition
to adult fare. So, in 2007
when the Junior’s room closes in the evening,
it will reopen at 9 PM
for three hours of teen gaming. Each night
will feature a demonstration and play of an
age-appropriate game with snacks and just
enough adult supervision to keep smaller siblings and “old fogeys”
at bay without
being oppressively uncool. Hopefully this compromise
solution will make
WBC more teen friendly while coaxing the youngsters
into more
challenging fare in a safe environment.

FAMILY
MEMBERSHIPS: The family membership discount fell victim in 2007
to continued abuse as the Board eliminated the rate to simplify
membership pricing. The family discount has long been erroneously
claimed regardless of qualification by those seeking the lowest
price. It was initially intended to defray the attendance
expenses of the
standard nuclear family living in the same
household but was often
claimed by individuals ignoring the multiple
membership, habitation and relationship requirements. The last
straw was when a couple ignored the
pre-registration requirements as well and demanded
the rate at the
door. Since we can’t require proof of qualification,
the honor system fell victim to the need to enforce a fair admissions
policy.

Our
budget expenditures increase every year but the admission price
remains the same. It can well be argued that it is fairer to the
majority to subsidize family attendance less
than to increase
everyone’s admission. In truth, everyone
still subsidizes family attendance somewhat as the free Juniors
events we offer are far and
away the most expensive events we run. So,
anyone bringing children is
still getting a reduced admission relative
to everyone else and that
was the original intent of the Family membership.
Consequently, we solved two problems (simplification
of membership and a more equitable
admission policy) while postponing any price
increase by eliminating
the Family discount.

HMGS: This summer’s Pre-Cons have been curtailed somewhat in length
due to the presence of the Historicon gaming
convention at the Host the
preceding weekend. While this confluence
was not planned by either
organization, it does present both with
a rare opportunity to market its showplace conference to the other’s
members. There is considerable
crossover appeal between historical miniatures
and board wargames and
some of our respective members attend both
conferences. This rare
conjoining of the two premier conferences
in their respective genre’s
at the same location and point in time
presents an opportunity for
adherents of both groups to sample what
the other has to offer at a
considerable savings in travel time and
expense.

The
two conventions will literally merge into one prolonged gaming
extravaganza as our Pre-Cons commence on Sunday afternoon even
as their show winds down in a seamless union of miniatures and
boardgaming. Consequently we are working with HMGS to
pool our marketing resources
to bill this summer’s events as a rare “2 fer 1”
gaming opportunity for
an extended gaming vacation. We anticipate a return of
a few Saturday
starts for Pre-Cons in 2008. There has been a $10
price decrease in
several Pre-Cons but to realize these savings you must
pre-register for
the event. Walk-on prices will remain higher.

JUNIOR
EVENTS: We have set a limit on the number of Junior events
we run at no more than 24 after years of
having trouble finding GMs for the 14 we used
to run. Some well-meaning volunteers may have
had their offers to run
Junior events declined and wonder why there
should be a limit on
Juniors events. The answer is simply, that “more
is not always better".
For years we ran Juniors events so that
they did not overlap to avoid
scheduling conflicts and overcrowding
in the Juniors room.

Last
year, we did too good a job of Junior GM recruiting
and increased the number
of such events by more than half. That
increase was not accompanied by
more Juniors—quite the opposite—as the number of youngsters
enrolled fell despite an increase in
overall attendance.
More importantly, the increase in events was not
accompanied by an
increase in assistant GMs which are
vital in running a Juniors event
where supervising adults are often
needed at every table.

Increasing
the number of events just added more
stress to kids who are too young
and have too limited attention spans
for non-stop boardgaming. Taking
away pool time and other physical
recreational activities for yet more
boardgames is not always a good idea.
It is also too taxing on our
well-meaning volunteers who end up
sacrificing too much of their own
vacation time pulling double and
triple junior duties.

FEEDBACK: Lastly,
all members are reminded that they can get
the ear of the Board for any WBC-related
topic simply by emailing the Convention Director
at doncon99@toad.net,
or any Board member for that matter.
All reasonable requests are aired for
the entire Board during our annual
meeting.